OxBlog has an essay which, unbeknownst to Oxblog, expands on my post yesterday about name-calling and elevating political discourse:

Are people really so sure of themselves that they simply cannot acknowledge that anyone who disagrees could be intelligent? Have they no humility whatsoever? Of course we all think we're right -- if we didn't think we were right, we'd change our opinions until we did. Maybe I'm just naive, but it really does amaze me when people claim that everyone who disagrees with them (on topics where general opinion is relatively divided -- I'm not talking about largely uncontroversial opinions like "slavery is wrong") is either malevolent, stupid, or both.

This attitude exists in a lot more places than in the blogosphere, although Josh Chafetz understandably focuses on that area of debate. I mentioned talk radio in yesterday's post, of course, but it wouldn't exist in the blogosphere or on talk radio if it wasn't completely pervasive in general society. Watch most political TV, and you get bombarded by panels of unruly talking heads, all of whom try to score points by screaming epithets at each other rather than debating in an orderly and intelligent manner. Tight time frames and overburdened agendas drive this, and a skillful moderator could eliminate much of the problem, but the producers of these shows seem to aim for this chaotic cacophony (if you'll pardon the alliteration!). Why? Because we buy it.

And why do we buy into this noise, this emotional and childish dissonance? Because I suspect we all would prefer to think of ourselves as warriors of the faith, whatever the faith may be. It's so much more dramatic to cast all your opponents as evil incarnate, and so much more desirable, because we then can contrast ourselves as the pinnacle of goodness and light. And if your opponent is evil incarnate, well then, what's a little sarcasm and disdain in a holy war? And instead of listening to each other, re-evaluating our positions as new data or concepts come to our attention, we shout at each other and grab onto our opinions as if they were tribal affiliations. It's small wonder that we see fewer calls for compromise and negotiation and instead dig for dirt with which to smear our opponents and their champions.

In fact, I see blogs as part of the solution. I always find it easier to tune my message when I write rather than when I speak, and I usually find it easier to read opposing opinions, even ones I find distasteful, than listening to them in real time. With features like TrackBack and commenting, we have the ability to build a more intelligent and productive discourse, and no one has to listen to Bill O'Reilly or Chris Matthews barking at people, or their guests barking back. Maybe we could actually convince people of the merits of our positions, or at least find places in which we can mostly agree.

So, please. A little civility. A little respect. A little elevation of the discourse. It won't hurt, I promise.

It may hurt -- descending from Defender of the Faith to Active, Informed Citizen may bruise the ego a bit -- but if we're going to ever fix the problem, it will be worth it.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is